ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Clinical Performance of Two Powder-Liquid Restoratives in Class-I/II Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Trial
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Vickers Hardness and Microleakage of Coated Glass-Hybrid and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Systems in Thermocycled Conservative Class II Cavities: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bioactive restorative materials in dentistry: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and future directions.Odontology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Restoring decayed teeth in young patients can be challenging. This calls for a simplification of the protocols through new biomaterials. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the marginal adaptation delivered by restorative materials applied on class II cavities by using a simplified protocol, before and after fatigue test, followed by the assessment of the internal adaptation. (2) Methods: Forty-eight human teeth were divided into six groups (n = 8). Dentinal fluid simulation was performed before restoring the class II cavities: Gr 1-adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) and nanohybrid flowable composite (Clearfil Majesty ES Super Low Flow), Gr 2-adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) and nanohybrid composite (Clearfil Majesty ES standard), Gr 3-bulk fill self-adhesive composite (Surefil One), Gr 4-bioactive powder-liquid filling material (Cention Forte), Gr 5-universal adhesive (Adhese Universal) and nanohybrid composite resin (Tetric Powerfill); and control group (CT)-high-viscosity glass ionomer (Equia Forte). Marginal adaptation was observed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and compared before and after a fatigue test consisting of repeated thermal and mechanical cycles. The specimens were then cut mesio-distally, and internal adaptation was undertaken using SEM again. Repeated measures and one way ANOVA followed by a Fisher's LSD test and Fisher's LSD post hoc test were used in order to compare the statistically significant differences among groups. (3) Results: As for the marginal adaptation after loading, Cention Forte (58%) and Equia Forte HT (53%) were statistically equivalent and presented the highest results, followed by Clearfil Majesty ES Standard (32%) and Tetric Powerfill (27%), with Surefil One (8%) and Clearfil Majesty ES Flow Super Low (7%) showing the worst results. In terms of internal adaptation, Cention Forte (85%) and Clearfil Majesty ES Standard (74%) had the highest percentages of continuous margins. Tetric powerfill (56%) and Equia Forte HT (44%) showed statistically significantly lower results, followed by Clearfil Majesty ES Flow Super Low (33%) and eventually Surefil One (17%). (4) Conclusions: This in vitro study showed promising results for the marginal and internal adaptation of alkasite dual cured Cention Forte in the restoration of class II cavities. This material could be considered an interesting restorative alternative for the restoration of deciduous teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.